Salcedo vs Bollozos, RTJ- 10-2236, July 5, 2010)

FACTS:

This petition is anent to the Letter-Complaint, dated August 29, 2008, filed by Ruben N.
Salcedo(complainant), charging Judge Gil G. Bollozos (respondent judge), Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 21, Cagayan de Oro City, with Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law in the handling
of SPEC. PROC. No. 2008-009, entitled "Jose Tanmalack, Jr., represented by Jocelyn Tanmalack Tan v.
Police Officers of Police Precinct No. 3, Agora, Lapasan, Cagayan De Oro City, and Insp. Wylen Rojo. "The
complainant questioned the issuance of the Writ of Amparo which had been unusually issued with
haste. He argued that the handwritten petition did not give any ground to warrant the issuance of the
Writ of Amparo; that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, bias, and obvious
partiality, and in grave disregard of the Rules and the rule of law when he acted upon and granted the
letter-petition for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo. The complainant also alleged that the respondent
judge "accommodated" the issuance of the Writ of Amparo because he and Atty. Francis Ku (Tanmalack's
counsel) are members of the Masonic fraternity. In response, respondents argued that when he received
the petition from the Office of the Clerk of Court, he had no option but to exercise his judicial duty
without any bias or partiality, nor did he consider that the petitioner's counsel is a fraternal brother
(Mason); Although the petition is for the issuance of both writ of amparo and writ of habeas corpus, he
deemed it more in consonance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo; OCA recommended that the
administrative complaint against the respondent judge be dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUES:

I. Whether or not Judge Bolos erred when he issued the Writ of Amparo?
II. Whether or not Judge Bolos should be administratively held liable?

RULING:

In its decision, the SC affirmed the OCA's recommendation that the administrative complaint against the
respondent judge be dismissed for lack of merit. However, the Supreme Court agreed with the
complainant that the respondent judge erred in issuing the Writ of Amparo in Tanmalack's favor.

I.

The Court believed that the Writ of Amparo ought not to have been issued by the respondent judge
since Tanmalack's petition was fatally defective in substance and content, as it did not allege that he was
a victim of "extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or the threats thereof." The petition merely
stated that he was "under threat of deprivation of liberty with the police stating that he was not arrested
but merely 'in custody.'

II.

On the question of whether the respondent judge could be held administratively liable for the error he
committed in the case, the Court answered in the negative. Plainly, the errors attributed to respondent
judge pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative functions. As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud,
dishonesty, and corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary
action. He cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal, or administrative for any of his official acts, no
matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud,
dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively
sanctioned. Settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative
functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed
through judicial remedies. The more significant issue charge by the complainants was the gross
ignorance of the law against the respondent judge. A patent disregard of simple, elementary and well-
known rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just
cursory acquaintance with laws and procedural rules. They must know the law and apply it properly in
good faith. They are likewise expected to keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence. For, a judge who is
plainly ignorant of the law taints the noble office and great privilege vested in him. The believed that the
respondent judge's error does not rise to the level of gross ignorance of the law that is defined by
jurisprudence. The Court noted the fact that at the time he issued the Writ of Amparo on January 23,
2008, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been effective for barely three months. More importantly, for
full liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the
performance of official duties must not only be found to be erroneous; it must be established that he
was motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motive. In the present case, the
complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence that the respondent judge was motivated by bad
faith and bias or partiality in the issuance of the Writ of Amparo.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to DISMISS the administrative complaint
against Judge Gil G. Bollozos, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Cagayande Oro City, for
lack of merit.